Secondly, the Onion is a satirical web-site as I'm sure you would know.

Although the Onion's article was a satire meant for general consumption, I think Sam's quote of it was meant to be a joke appreciated mainly by Catholics and fellow Christians. So it's not really for atheistic laughter. :(

As to how the RC Church could cover up a reckless angel wrecking the lives of multitudes, they do it perfectly well with pedophile priests, so perhaps they could use the same methods?

1) This is an outrageous fabrication of an angel-hating crowd!2) The crowd deliberately tempted the angel to crash into them!3) After repeated accusations of crashing into crowds, the accused angel has been reassigned to another jurisdiction without alerting the new parish of his history, and is unfortunately now unavailable to answer the charges.4) The Archangels had heard rumours that the angel was reckless, but supervising angelic flight really wasn't their job.5) The RC church in its mercy has instituted a Truth and Restitution process that will see each of the victims' families patronised, given 30 Euro compensation and a dispensation in the next life. What more do you want?6) The RC church has it handled by their Top Men. Any politician foolish enough to demand an independent inquiry will be lobbied against in churches, just as secular democracy ought to allow.

Secondly, the Onion is a satirical web-site as I'm sure you would know.

Although the Onion's article was a satire meant for general consumption, I think Sam's quote of it was meant to be a joke appreciated mainly by Catholics and fellow Christians. So it's not really for atheistic laughter. :(

Ah. I see I might have missed the joke he was making by pretending to disown his own religion in the face of the (satirical) news story. My bad.

As to how the RC Church could cover up a reckless angel wrecking the lives of multitudes, they do it perfectly well with pedophile priests, so perhaps they could use the same methods?

1) This is an outrageous fabrication of an angel-hating crowd!2) The crowd deliberately tempted the angel to crash into them!3) After repeated accusations of crashing into crowds, the accused angel has been reassigned to another jurisdiction without alerting the new parish of his history, and is unfortunately now unavailable to answer the charges.4) The Archangels had heard rumours that the angel was reckless, but supervising angelic flight really wasn't their job.5) The RC church in its mercy has instituted a Truth and Restitution process that will see each of the victims' families patronised, given 30 Euro compensation and a dispensation in the next life. What more do you want?6) The RC church has it handled by their Top Men. Any politician foolish enough to demand an independent inquiry will be lobbied against in churches, just as secular democracy ought to allow.

Secondly, the Onion is a satirical web-site as I'm sure you would know.

Although the Onion's article was a satire meant for general consumption, I think Sam's quote of it was meant to be a joke appreciated mainly by Catholics and fellow Christians. So it's not really for atheistic laughter. :(

Ah. I see I might have missed the joke he was making by pretending to disown his own religion in the face of the (satirical) news story. My bad.

It might be even more than that, Dee. Sam could be dismissing the legitimate critique of the morality and corruption of a paternalistic faith by drawing a false comparison with a fictional news story that trivialises the lifelong suffering of fellow parishioners through false comparison.

Or... in fairness, Sam could have an extensive history of criticising the RC church for its unconscionable behaviour and its cynical pretense at repentance, and be making a sardonic comment at the expense of an adherent who loves a church presently unworthy of that love.

Secondly, the Onion is a satirical web-site as I'm sure you would know.

Although the Onion's article was a satire meant for general consumption, I think Sam's quote of it was meant to be a joke appreciated mainly by Catholics and fellow Christians. So it's not really for atheistic laughter. :(

Ah. I see I might have missed the joke he was making by pretending to disown his own religion in the face of the (satirical) news story. My bad.

It might be even more than that, Dee. Sam could be dismissing the legitimate critique of the morality and corruption of a paternalistic faith by drawing a false comparison with a fictional news story that trivialises the lifelong suffering of fellow parishioners through false comparison.

Or... in fairness, Sam could have an extensive history of criticising the RC church for its unconscionable behaviour and its cynical pretense at repentance, and be making a sardonic comment at the expense of an adherent who loves a church presently unworthy of that love.

Or, I might be joking in regards to the ignorant and usually unfair attitudes toward the Catholic Church/faith, on how wayward priests who obviously go against the teachings of the Church and Bible who were rejected by their fellow parishioners and contemporaries.

And to be fair, the cover up by the Catholic Church, however unappropriate, does not suggest that the Church condoned such behavior or supported it, rather that they did not their actions to taint the actual truth of the religion. Because now, many just associate the Catgolic Church with pedophile priests. This is not only an unfair stereotype, but also similar of the ignorant claim of how Muslims aren't peaceful, based on the real problem of extremist sectors of the religion.

Secondly, the Onion is a satirical web-site as I'm sure you would know.

Although the Onion's article was a satire meant for general consumption, I think Sam's quote of it was meant to be a joke appreciated mainly by Catholics and fellow Christians. So it's not really for atheistic laughter. :(

Ah. I see I might have missed the joke he was making by pretending to disown his own religion in the face of the (satirical) news story. My bad.

It might be even more than that, Dee. Sam could be dismissing the legitimate critique of the morality and corruption of a paternalistic faith by drawing a false comparison with a fictional news story that trivialises the lifelong suffering of fellow parishioners through false comparison.

Or... in fairness, Sam could have an extensive history of criticising the RC church for its unconscionable behaviour and its cynical pretense at repentance, and be making a sardonic comment at the expense of an adherent who loves a church presently unworthy of that love.

Or, I might be joking in regards to the ignorant and usually unfair attitudes toward the Catholic Church/faith, on how wayward priests who obviously go against the teachings of the Church and Bible who were rejected by their fellow parishioners and contemporaries.

That there are paedophile priests in the RC church is not the key community criticism of the RC church regarding paedophilia.

The key community criticism is that the paedophilia has routinely been known about and suspected by the RC clerical hierarchy, has been dismissed and ignored, the priests shielded from justice through pre-emptive redeployment into other jurisdictions, the victims blamed, deflected and bullied, the church using legal and administrative tricks to avoid financial and moral responsibility, and the more successful perpetrators of this systematic suppression promoted.

And to be fair, the cover up by the Catholic Church, however unappropriate, does not suggest that the Church condoned such behavior or supported it

Actually, that's not the issue. The issue is that the church has demonstrated loyalty only to its clergy, accountability to nobody without legal compulsion, and has treated its parishioners as resources to be farmed.

I understand you'd like to see it otherwise, because if you acknowledged it as I described it, your own sense of decency might impel you to leave your church, and that might cost you a major piece of your own cultural and personal identity. So it's a huge risk for you to view this so objectively that you explore the full implications, rather than cruelly and unjustly misrepresenting and trivialising them as you've done in this thread.

But that's self-interest put above respect, ethics or justice, Sam. And that's why I criticised your post as strongly as I did:

Sam could be dismissing legitimate critique of the morality and corruption of a paternalistic faith by drawing a false comparison with a fictional news story that trivialises the lifelong suffering of fellow parishioners

Not to critique your bias, which I understand without condoning, but to expose the injustice and cruelty in your self-interested trivialisation of the issues.

Secondly, the Onion is a satirical web-site as I'm sure you would know.

Although the Onion's article was a satire meant for general consumption, I think Sam's quote of it was meant to be a joke appreciated mainly by Catholics and fellow Christians. So it's not really for atheistic laughter. :(

Ah. I see I might have missed the joke he was making by pretending to disown his own religion in the face of the (satirical) news story. My bad.

It might be even more than that, Dee. Sam could be dismissing the legitimate critique of the morality and corruption of a paternalistic faith by drawing a false comparison with a fictional news story that trivialises the lifelong suffering of fellow parishioners through false comparison.

Or... in fairness, Sam could have an extensive history of criticising the RC church for its unconscionable behaviour and its cynical pretense at repentance, and be making a sardonic comment at the expense of an adherent who loves a church presently unworthy of that love.

Or, I might be joking in regards to the ignorant and usually unfair attitudes toward the Catholic Church/faith, on how wayward priests who obviously go against the teachings of the Church and Bible who were rejected by their fellow parishioners and contemporaries.

That there are paedophile priests in the RC church is not the key community criticism of the RC church regarding paedophilia.

The key community criticism is that the paedophilia has routinely been known about and suspected by the RC clerical hierarchy, has been dismissed and ignored, the priests shielded from justice through pre-emptive redeployment into other jurisdictions, the victims blamed, deflected and bullied, the church using legal and administrative tricks to avoid financial and moral responsibility, and the more successful perpetrators of this systematic suppression promoted.

And to be fair, the cover up by the Catholic Church, however unappropriate, does not suggest that the Church condoned such behavior or supported it

Actually, that's not the issue. The issue is that the church has demonstrated loyalty only to its clergy, accountability to nobody without legal compulsion, and has treated its parishioners as resources to be farmed.

I understand you'd like to see it otherwise, because if you acknowledged it as I described it, your own sense of decency might impel you to leave your church, and that might cost you a major piece of your own cultural and personal identity. So it's a huge risk for you to view this so objectively that you explore the full implications, rather than cruelly and unjustly misrepresenting and trivialising them as you've done in this thread.

But that's self-interest put above respect, ethics or justice, Sam. And that's why I criticised your post as strongly as I did:

Sam could be dismissing legitimate critique of the morality and corruption of a paternalistic faith by drawing a false comparison with a fictional news story that trivialises the lifelong suffering of fellow parishioners

Not to critique your bias, which I understand without condoning, but to expose the injustice and cruelty in your self-interested trivialisation of the issues.

I see you have taken this thread, meant as a sarcastic reflection on the behavior of some on this religion, and twisted it so you could ramble on your feelings of hostility against the Roman Catholic Church, demonstrating generalizing misinterpretations of the faith itself and emotional appeal.

Case in point:

"the church using legal and administrative tricks to avoid financial and moral responsibility, and the more successful perpetrators of this systematic suppression promoted."

Secondly, the Onion is a satirical web-site as I'm sure you would know.

Although the Onion's article was a satire meant for general consumption, I think Sam's quote of it was meant to be a joke appreciated mainly by Catholics and fellow Christians. So it's not really for atheistic laughter. :(

Ah. I see I might have missed the joke he was making by pretending to disown his own religion in the face of the (satirical) news story. My bad.

It might be even more than that, Dee. Sam could be dismissing the legitimate critique of the morality and corruption of a paternalistic faith by drawing a false comparison with a fictional news story that trivialises the lifelong suffering of fellow parishioners through false comparison.

Or... in fairness, Sam could have an extensive history of criticising the RC church for its unconscionable behaviour and its cynical pretense at repentance, and be making a sardonic comment at the expense of an adherent who loves a church presently unworthy of that love.

Or, I might be joking in regards to the ignorant and usually unfair attitudes toward the Catholic Church/faith, on how wayward priests who obviously go against the teachings of the Church and Bible who were rejected by their fellow parishioners and contemporaries.

That there are paedophile priests in the RC church is not the key community criticism of the RC church regarding paedophilia.

The key community criticism is that the paedophilia has routinely been known about and suspected by the RC clerical hierarchy, has been dismissed and ignored, the priests shielded from justice through pre-emptive redeployment into other jurisdictions, the victims blamed, deflected and bullied, the church using legal and administrative tricks to avoid financial and moral responsibility, and the more successful perpetrators of this systematic suppression promoted.

And to be fair, the cover up by the Catholic Church, however unappropriate, does not suggest that the Church condoned such behavior or supported it

Actually, that's not the issue. The issue is that the church has demonstrated loyalty only to its clergy, accountability to nobody without legal compulsion, and has treated its parishioners as resources to be farmed.

I understand you'd like to see it otherwise, because if you acknowledged it as I described it, your own sense of decency might impel you to leave your church, and that might cost you a major piece of your own cultural and personal identity. So it's a huge risk for you to view this so objectively that you explore the full implications, rather than cruelly and unjustly misrepresenting and trivialising them as you've done in this thread.

But that's self-interest put above respect, ethics or justice, Sam. And that's why I criticised your post as strongly as I did:

Sam could be dismissing legitimate critique of the morality and corruption of a paternalistic faith by drawing a false comparison with a fictional news story that trivialises the lifelong suffering of fellow parishioners

Not to critique your bias, which I understand without condoning, but to expose the injustice and cruelty in your self-interested trivialisation of the issues.

I see you have taken this thread, meant as a sarcastic reflection on the behavior of some on this religion, and twisted it so you could ramble on your feelings of hostility against the Roman Catholic Church, demonstrating generalizing misinterpretations of the faith itself and emotional appeal.

Sam, since you have admitted that from the outset that your purpose has been to ridicule and trivialise critique of the Church's complicity in the widespread, intergenerational suffering of your fellow parishioners, it is hardly twisting to critique that purpose. In fact, from the outset I have been more honest, transparent and accountable in my commentary than you yourself were in your Original Post.

And since I have been honest and on-topic while you have been covert and evasive, do you now have evidence to offer that the Roman Catholic Church has not been complicit in perpetuating the suffering of your fellow parishioners, even to the complicity of senior clergy, such as archbishops and a former Pope? Or do you wish to support the argument that clergy of your faith and its institutions should not be critiqued from outside the faith and by humanity in general for their cynical, amoral and paternalistic abuses of power? Only if you can make either case, are you free to allege that any criticism arises from hostility without cause.

Please feel free to make either argument constructively, if you feel you can. Else, while you are welcome to continue to try and snigger at worldwide outrage from Catholics and non-Catholics alike at the suffering and injustice your religious institutions have inflicted on your co-religionists, you may also continue to see criticism for the cruelty, insensitivity, misplaced loyalty and willful ignorance you exercise when doing so.